On (25/06/20 13:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (25/05/26 23:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: [..] > Surprisingly enough, this did not help. > > Jan, one more silly question: > > fsnotify_get_mark_safe() and fsnotify_put_mark_wake() can be called on > NULL mark. Is it possible that between fsnotify_prepare_user_wait(iter_info) > and fsnotify_finish_user_wait(iter_info) iter_info->marks[type] changes in > such a way that creates imbalance? That is, fsnotify_finish_user_wait() sees > more NULL marks and hence does not rollback all the group->user_waits > increments that fsnotify_prepare_user_wait() did? No, that doesn't seem to be possible. Sorry for the noise. My another silly idea was, fsnotify_put_mark_wake() is called in a loop and it tests group->shutdown locklessly, as far as I can tell, so maybe there is a speculative load and we use stale/"cached" group->shutdown value w/o ever waking up ->notification_waitq. Am running out of ideas.
